REVIEWED PLN_RESUB1 BLD2021-0591+Enviro.Report+7.16.2021_3.22.44_PM+2305999CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Environmental Consulting
RESU B BLD2021-0591
Jul 16 2021
CITY OFEDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
GREY SEA LLC RESIDENCE
REDEVELOPMENT
729 Laurel Street
Edmonds Washington 98020
(Parcel # 9253900435)
Prepared by:
Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
19609 244th Avenue NE
Woodinville, Washington 98077
Prepared for:
Grey Sea, LLC
66 S. Hanford St, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98134
July 16, 2021 (rev #1)
19609 244" AVENUE NE • WOODINVILLE, WA 98077 • 425/788-0961
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description........................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of this Report..................................................................................................1
1.3 Report Author...............................................................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................1
2.1 Stream...........................................................................................................................1
2.2 Stream Buffer................................................................................................................2
2.3 Species of Local Importance.........................................................................................3
3.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ON CRITICAL AREAS.............................................................................. 3
3.1 Stream...........................................................................................................................4
3.2 Species of Local Importance.........................................................................................4
4.0 MITIGATION.....................................................................................................................5
4.1 Impact Avoidance..........................................................................................................5
4.2 Impact Minimization.....................................................................................................5
4.3 Compensatory Mitigation.............................................................................................5
5.0 VEGETATION MAINTENANCE............................................................................................5
6.0 VEGETATION MONITORING..............................................................................................6
7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN........................................................................................................ 6
8.0 MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE........................................................................................... 7
9.0 CODE COMPLIANCE.......................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Grey Sea LLC property in Edmonds..................................................................................2
Figure 2. Existing stream buffer conditions....................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Stream Buffer and Setback Changes under the Proposed Action ................................... 4
APPENDICES
Development Proposal Site Plan
Mitigation Planting Plan and Details
Bond Cost Estimate
REPORT AUTHOR: This report was prepared by Carl Hadley, a professional aquatic biologist with
over 30 years of experience evaluating effects of changing land use on aquatic habitat. Mr.
Hadley is the principal biologist with Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
July 16, 2021 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Grey Sea CAR071621.docx Page i
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
An existing home located at 729 Laurel Street in Edmonds (Figure 1) will be extensively
remodeled using the existing foundation. The northern portion of the site is encumbered by a
stream buffer with the stream itself located off -site. The existing house lies partially within the
stream buffer and setback area.
Under the proposed action the house will be expanded slightly towards the stream but will do so
in place of the existing house, deck, concrete patio and staircase that are to be removed. As
mitigation, overall structure, driveway, and patio within both the stream buffer and the setback
will be significantly reduced. 390 sf of stream buffer will be enhanced with new native plantings
to include two trees. A third tree will be planted elsewhere on site.
1.2 Purpose of this Report
A Critical Areas Determination (CRA2020-0125) completed by the City' noted the presence of the
off -site stream and determined that a Critical Areas Study would be required. No other critical
areas were noted.
This report was prepared to evaluate environmental effects of the proposed project on the
stream and stream buffer. Mitigation is proposed where necessary to offset adverse impacts.
1.3 Report Author
This report was prepared by Carl Hadley, a professional habitat biologist with over 30 years of
experience in western Washington.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site was visited by Carl Hadley on March 3, 2021 to examine existing conditions and review
potential changes proposed under the redevelopment plan. The creek was observed from over
the fence, a distance of about 10 feet.
2.1 Stream
A small watercourse runs from east to west across the neighbor's property to the north. The
channel is less than two feet wide and runs down a roughly 20 percent slope. It appears to have
been highly modified with bank protection and possible channelization in places. The City has
1 City of Edmonds. 2020. Critical Areas Determination (CRA2020-0125) - 729 Laurel St. Report provided by Michele
Szafran, City of Edmonds Planning Division to Grey Sea LLC. Sept. 2, 2020.
July 16, 2021 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Grey Sea CAR071621.docx Page 1
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
classified it as a Type Np water with a 50-foot buffer. We saw no evidence to contradict this
assessment.
Figure 1. Grey Sea LLC property in Edmonds.
2.2 Stream Buffer
Much of the area immediately adjacent to the stream appears to be managed by the neighbors
as part of their yard and contains little vegetation. A line of what appears to be old, highly
managed Pyramidalis (Thuja sp.) and five western redcedar are present off -site between the
July 16, 2021 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Grey Sea CAR071621.docx Page 2
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
stream and the subject property (Figure 2). These trees provide almost complete visual
separation between the site and the stream. Some of the trees are in poor shape and riddled
with invasive ivy species. There are no trees or other significant vegetation within the stream
buffer or setback on the subject property. A few landscaping shrubs (Japanese maple and
juniper) are scattered around but most of the buffer area is covered with concrete and asphalt.
Groundcover in the few dirt -covered areas consist of periwinkle (Vinca) and weedy grasses.
There are no functional habitat features on the subject property.
Figure 2. Existing stream buffer conditions looking north at west side (left) and east side (right)
of the property.
2.3 Species of Local Importance
The wildlife habitat review consisted of a site -specific survey and consultation with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife database'. The site and surrounding lands have
been developed mostly as moderate -density single -unit residential housing (Figure 2). Some
suitable wildlife habitat for terrestrial and avian species is found in the area, in particular within
a few larger trees scattered around the neighborhood. However, overall wildlife habitat quality
has been significantly modified by past clearing, fragmentation, and introduction of non-native
landscaping species (e.g. English ivy, English holly, Himalayan blackberry, and turf grasses). The
highly pruned cedars and scattered landscaping shrubs found on the site provide very little
wildlife habitat. No sensitive habitat or species (other than the creek) has been reported within
200-feet of the site.
3.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ON CRITICAL AREAS
Critical areas are defined in the City of Edmonds under Chapter 30 of the development code.
They include wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically
hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (and buffers). Existing
conditions fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on or near the site are described in Section
2.0 of this report. This section describes any actions that will be taken within or near the critical
area and any proposed changes to the functions or values that will occur. Critical Area functions
' Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. Priority habitat and species map.
July 16, 2021 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Grey Sea CAR071621.docx Page 3
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
and values for fish and wildlife species are based on WDFW guidelines' and other best available
science4.
3.1 Stream
The Type Np stream is located off -site. The stream channel will not be directly affected in any
way. However, roughly the northern third of the site is encompassed by the 50-foot stream
buffer and about half of the site is covered by the combination of the buffer and 15-foot setback.
The entire site within the buffer and setback has been highly modified having been completely
cleared and heavily graded when the site was originally developed in 1961. A house, above
ground wooden deck, concrete patio under the deck, and paved parking area were all installed
during this period.
Development within the stream buffer and setback will be mitigated in several ways. The existing
deck, concrete patio, and much of the paved parking area will be eliminated and replaced with
pervious surfaces including lawn, garden, and native planting areas. Overall, the area of
impervious surface within the stream buffer will be reduced by 949 sf as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Stream Buffer and Setback Changes under the Proposed Action
--- 50'
Existing
Stream Buffer ---
Proposed Change
--- 15'
Existing
Buffer Setback ---
Proposed Change
Total
Change
Condition
Structure/Asphalt/Concrete
1,814
865
-949
1,151
1,141
-10
-959
Garden/Weeds/Gravel/Rockery
1,444
2,003
559
340
350
10
569
Native Vegetation
0
390
390
0
0
0
i 390
Because no existing native riparian vegetation will be disturbed, the only impact will be to
previously disturbed areas (mainly concrete and asphalt). The area of impervious surface will be
significantly reduced. With additional native plants and rainwater infiltration (reduced runoff),
the net benefit to the stream is expected to be positive.
3.2 Species of Local Importance
All new development will take place within areas of existing structure and impervious surface.
No native vegetation or any significant trees will be removed, and no new human activities will
be introduced to the area. New native vegetation to include three new trees will be planted on
the site. Overall, there will some short-term disturbance during construction, but significant
long-term improvements to upland wildlife habitat.
3 Knutson, K. L. and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181p.
4 For example, see Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting
Critical Areas. 2002. Washington State Office of Community Development, Olympia, WA. and City of Bellevue's
2005 Best Available Science (BAS) Review (Herrera 2005).
July 16, 2021 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Grey Sea CAR071621.docx Page 4
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
4.0 MITIGATION
Chapter 23.40.110 requires mitigation for all impacts to critical areas and buffers. Mitigation
sequencing is also required as described in Chapter 23.40.120. The primary means of mitigation
for redevelopment of this lot has been avoidance of new disturbance by working only in the
existing building footprint. Compensatory mitigation in the form of reduction of impervious
surfaces and native plantings are proposed by the applicant.
4.1 Impact Avoidance
The following actions are proposed to avoid impacts to critical areas:
• No disturbance is proposed to the stream channel.
• No new land disturbance is proposed, all work is proposed within the existing building
footprint and concrete patio under the deck.
• No large trees or native vegetation will be disturbed.
4.2 Impact Minimization
The following actions are proposed to minimize impacts:
• The existing house footprint for the most part will be reused. Land disturbance will be
minimal with most of the new section of house supported above the ground on columns.
4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
The following actions are proposed to improve habitat functions:
• An existing concrete patio, asphalt driveway, and large deck (949 sf) will be removed from
within the stream buffer.
• New native vegetation to include two native trees will be planted within 20-feet of the
stream.
• One additional native tree will be planted elsewhere on the site.
5.0 VEGETATION MAINTENANCE
Re-establishing native vegetation in the area adjacent to the creek is the goal of this maintenance
plan. Activities required to maintain new plantings include initial watering of the new plants, and
periodic removal of non-native vegetation that could damage or shade out the young plants.
• New plantings shall be periodically watered (once or twice per month) from May through
mid -October during the first season. A potable water source is available for this use.
• Maintenance, to include removal of non-native species from the mitigation planting area
shall be completed at minimum twice each year.
• The use of herbicides and pesticides is prohibited unless given written permission by the
City of Edmonds.
• All work shall be performed by hand with the lightest possible equipment.
July 16, 2021 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Grey Sea CAR071621.docx Page 5
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
6.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
Due to the small size and uncomplicated nature of the proposed planting project the plantings
shall be self -maintained and self -monitored by the homeowner for a period of five years. Reports
shall be provided to the City in Years 1, 3, and 5 after planting. Vegetation monitoring shall
consist of plant inspection to determine the health and vigor of each planted tree. All
replacement plants shall be inspected once a year for five years to determine the health of each
specimen. Dead or dying plants shall be replaced the following fall. Plant species substitutions
may be made if site conditions are believed responsible for plant mortality. Replacement species
must be approved by the City.
Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City of Edmonds, Attn: Environmental Planning
Manager by October 31st in Years 1, 3, and 5 after planting. Photos showing the planting area
shall be included in the monitoring reports to document conditions. The following schedule and
performance standards apply and will be evaluated in the report for each year:
Year 1 (from date of Dlant installation
• 100% survival of all installed plants and/or replanting in following dormant season to
reestablish 100% of original plantings.
• Less than 10% coverage of invasive plants in planting area.
Year 3 (from date of plant installation)
• At least 85% survival of all installed material (100% of trees).
• At least 35% coverage of the planting area by native plants.
• Less than 5% coverage of planting area by invasive species or non-native/ornamental
vegetation.
Year 5 (from date of Dlant installation
• At least 85% survival of all installed material (100% of trees)
• At least 70% coverage of the planting area by native plants
• Less than 5% coverage by invasive species or non-native/ornamental vegetation.
7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN
A contingency plan would be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans would be developed
based on the specific failure to meet success standards described in Section 7 of this plan.
Contingency plans could include additional plant installation and plant substitutions including
type, size, and location.
If monitoring results indicate that any of the performance standards are not being met, it may be
necessary to implement all or part of a contingency plan. Careful attention to detail and site
maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to
July 16, 2021 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Grey Sea CAR071621.docx Page 6
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
meet success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with City approval.
Such plans are prepared on a case -by -case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics.
Contingency/maintenance activities may include:
• Engineering plan revisions for drainage, slope protection, etc.
• Replacing all plants lost to browsing, drought, or disease, as necessary.
• Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same
species or similar species approved by the City Biologist.
• Irrigating the planting area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be
too dry, with a minimal quantity of water.
• Streambank erosion protection measures.
• Removing trash or other undesirable debris from the buffer area as necessary.
8.0 MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE
A cost estimate for the mitigation planting, maintenance, and monitoring based on the King
County spreadsheet updated to 2021 prices is $6,930. Details are provided in the appendix.
9.0 CODE COMPLIANCE
The proposed redevelopment project will be completed under Chapter 23.90.040.D.5. -
Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. This section requires
certain conditions are met. We have listed the conditions below and provided a description of
how the project was designed to meet each one.
a. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the
definition provided in ECDC 23.40.005;
The footprint of the existing development as described in ECDC 23.40.005 was legally established
and has been in place since 1961.
b. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away
from the stream edge as is feasible;
Various development options were reviewed and the current proposal slightly reduces the
development footprint within the buffer while maintaining the rest of the structure in the historic
footprint. This gets the structure slightly further from the stream edge. There is no other
reasonable alternative that would provide additional stream buffer function.
c. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing
development are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent
to the stream and not represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed
development;
July 16, 2021 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Grey Sea CAR071621.docx Page 7
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
The current proposal provides significant development reduction in both the stream buffer and
stream buffer setback. Altogether the quantity of impervious surface will be reduced by 1,158 sf
near the stream. This area will be converted to landscaping and gardening area for the
homeowners.
d. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent remaining stream buffer
in order to improve functions degraded by previous development;
Initial development of the lot included large, paved areas of the stream buffer for use as patio
and parking. This resulted in greatly increasing stormwater runoff rates from the site. Under the
proposed action 1,158 sf of the buffer and setback will be returned to native soil and maintained
that way in perpetuity. This will significantly increase infiltration capacity and reduce runoff rates
from the site.
e. Enhancement is provided as buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of
the occurring in stream buffer; and
There is a total of 210.3 sf of proposed development in the stream buffer, all within the footprint
of existing development. This is being mitigated by removing 1,057 sf of existing imperious
surface from the buffer, thereby improving buffer function (primarily stormwater infiltration and
water quality enhancement). This provides an enhancement ratio of 5:1, significantly exceeding
the 1:1 requirement.
f. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the stream buffer shall be addressed through
use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following
construction of the allowed alteration.
While work will occur within the stream buffer as part of the restoration process, no temporary
construction disturbance to any natural habitat within the stream buffer is proposed. All areas
of the buffer in which work will occur are currently considered highly disturbed (i.e. paved).
There will be no temporal habitat loss associated with this project. The only work within this
area will be restoration of existing areas of disturbance to a more natural state.
July 16, 2021
Grey Sea CAR 071621.docx
CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Page 8
Grey Sea Redevelopment
Edmonds, Washington Critical Areas Report
NOT TO SCALE
July 16, 2021
Grey Sea CAR 071621.docx
CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Page 9
OFF -SITE'
TYPE Np STREAM
MITIGATION
PLANTING
MITIGATION - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE /
390 SF
STRUCTURE REDUCTION
BUFFER 1,057 SF : SETBACK 9 SF
37
EXISTING
STRUCTURE EXISTING
PAVEMENT
24'
50-FOOT
STREAM
BUFFER
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
15-FOOT
EAVE
0
SETBACK
0
0
0
0
0❑
°
❑
Scale 1" = 16' 1 F
MITIGATION PROPOSAL
APPLICANT: Grey Sea LLC
729 Laurel Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
July 16, 2021 1 Sheet 1 of 3
PLANTING DETAILS
The following plant counts are based on 390 sf to be
planted near the off -site creek as shown on Sheet 1.
• Three trees to be planted per ECDC
23.10.060.C.5
• Shrubs to be planted 5' o.c.: at 25 sf per shrub =
16 shrubs
• Groundcovers/bulbs to be planted as infill = 115
FRONT YARD
j PROPOSED
EAVE
O
O
O
O
O
l�
l�
l�
0
PLANT NAME AND SPECIES
SIZE
#
GROUNDCOVERS - 929 total
K
KINNIKINNIK (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi)
4"
15
CAMAS (Camassia quamash)
Bulbs
100
SHRUBS - 149 total
DEER FERN (Blechnum spicant)
1-GAL
2
SWORD FERN (Polystichum munitum)
1-GAL
4
EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY (Vaccinium ovatum)
1-GAL
2
MANZANITA (Arctostaphylos sp.)
1-GAL
2
OREGON BOX (Paxistima myrsinites)
1-GAL
2
PACIFIC RHODODENDRON (R. macrophylum)
2-GAL
2
RED FLOWERING CURRANT (Ribessanguineum)
1-GAL
2
TREES - 3 total
VINE MAPLE (Acer circinatum)
5-GAL
1
SHORE PINE (Pinus contorta)
5-GAL
1
CASCARA BUCKTHORN (Rhamnus purshiana)
5-GAL
1
STREAM BUFFER
3 7'
I \ C \
K K
K K 24
K
CAMAS
0
PLANTING DETAILS
PLANT INSTALLATION
1. Plant materials shall be nursery grown or collected in the Puget Sound area. Plants shall be normal in pattern of growth,
healthy, well —branched, vigorous, with well —developed root systems, and free of pests and diseases. Damaged, diseased,
pest —infested, scraped, bruised, dried out, burned, broken, or defective plants will be rejected.
2. If selected species are not available or desirable, then similar species may be substituted with approval from owner and City
of Edmonds.
3. Planting shall occur during the cool season (September 15 through March 15).
4. Landscaper shall examine soils in the area to determine suitability for selected plants. New topsoil or compost amendment
shall be added to a depth of 12" where necessary to support plants.
5. Immediately after planting, plants shall be watered to saturation.
6. Planting locations shown on the plan are approximate. Actual planting locations shall be field determined at time of
planting by landscape architect or biologist. If significant changes are made, an as —built plan shall be prepared and submitted
to the City of Edmonds. A minimum of 390 sf of new plantings shall be installed and maintained.
7. Provide good quality landscape mulch around all shrubs.
LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE
1. Controlling any non—native species and re—establishing native vegetation are the primary goals of this maintenance plan.
Activities required to maintain new plantings include initial watering of the new plants, and periodic removal of non—native
vegetation (weeding) within the planting area.
2. New plantings shall be watered from May through mid —October during the first season. A temporary irrigation system is
allowed. A potable water source is available for this use.
3. Due to the aggressively invasive habit of many non—native species in the area, and the existence of nearby seed sources,
control efforts shall be completed for five years following initial plant installation. Establishment of native plantings over the five
year time period will create a well established native habitat lessening the chance for non—native vegetation invasion.
4. The control of invasive weeds (competing grasses and herbs) shall be mechanically provided throughout the planting area at
a minimum of twice per year, or more should additional weeding be deemed necessary. The optimal season for weed control
occurs in April thru September. The use of herbicides and pesticides shall be avoided. All work shall be performed by hand
with the lightest possible equipment.
MONITORING
1) Compliance monitoring consists of evaluating the plants immediately after plant installation. The objective is to verify that all
design features, as agreed to in the plans, have been correctly and fully implemented, and that any changes made in the field
are consistent with the intent of the design. Evaluation of the planting areas after restoration will be done by the homeowner.
A brief compliance report will be prepared describing final plant counts and noting any substitutions or movement of plants
when compared to the design. Rationale for changes shall be provided. Three photo points will be established giving complete
coverage of the buffer area.
2) Long Term Monitoring — New plantings will be monitored in late summer in years one, three, and five after plant installation.
Monitoring will be conducted by the homeowner to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material. An annual
monitoring report submitted to the City following each years monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the
mitigation and provide the three photos from the same locations as the compliance report.
Vegetation monitoring will consist of plant inspection to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All planted material
in the buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. Each shrub and
tree will be rated either as dead, dying, or healthy. Dead or dying material will be replaced the following fall unless plant
crowding is believed to be a problem. Plant species substitutions may be made if site conditions are believed responsible for
plant mortality. Replacement plants must be approved by the City. Volunteer native, non—invasive species will be included as
acceptable components of the mitigation project. Ground covers will be rated as percent ground coverage for each of the
major areas covered with these species.
At least three photo points will be established giving complete coverage of the buffer area. Photos will be taken at each point
during every monitoring visit and submitted as part of the annual monitoring report.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Year 1 (from date of plant installation)
• 100% survival of all installed plants and/or replanting in following dormant season to reestablish 100% of original plantings
• Less than 10% coverage of invasive plants in planting area.
Year 3 (from date of plant installation)
• At least 85% survival of all installed material (100% of trees)
• At least 35% coverage of the planting area by native plants
• Less than 5% coverage of planting area by invasive species or non—native/ornamental vegetation.
Year 5 (from date of plant installation)
• At least 85% survival of all installed material (100% of trees)
• At least 70% coverage of the planting area by native plants
• Less than 5% coverage by invasive species or non—native/ornamental vegetation.
Critical Areas Mitigation
Bond Quantity Worksheet
Project Name: Grey Sea LLC Date: 07/16/2021 Prepared by: Carl Hadley
Project Number: Project Description: House Mitigation Buffer Planting
Location: 729 Laurel Street Applicant: Grey Sea LLC Phone:
PLANT MATERIALS (includes labor cost for plant installation)
Type
I Unit Pricel
Unitl
Quantityl
Descriptioni
Cost
PLANTS: Bulbs
$1.00
Each
100
$ 100.00
PLANTS: Potted, 4" diameter, medium
$5.00
Each
15
$ 75.00
PLANTS: Container,1 gallon, medium soil
$11.50
Each
14
$ 161.00
PLANTS: Container, 2 gallon, medium soil
$20.001
Each
1 2
$ 40.00
PLANTS: Container, 5 gallon, medium soil
$36.00
Each
3
$ 108.00
TOTAL
$ 484.00
INSTALLATION COSTS ( LABOR, EQUIPMENT, & OVERHEAD)
Type
I Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Description
FCost
Compost, vegetable, delivered and spread
$37.88
CY
1.00
$ 37.88
installation)
$40.00
HR
6.00
$ 240.00
Labor: Consultant, supervising
$55.00
HR
1.00
$ 55.00
Watering, 1" of water, 50' soaker hose
1 $3.621
MSFI
1.001
$ 3.62
Irrigation - temporary
1 $3,000.00
Acre
0.01
$ 26.10
77
TOTAL
$ 362.60
ITEMS
of
Construction
Unit
Quantity
Description
Cost
Mobilization
10%
1
1
$ 84.66
Contingency
30%
1
1
$ 253.98
TOTAL
$ 338.64
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING
Less than 1,000 sf and buffer only
Maintenance, annual (by owner or consultant)
$1.10
SF
390.00
For Tive
years
$ 2,145.00
Monitoring
$720
Each
5.00
$ 3,600.00
TOTAL
$ 5,745.00
Total
$6 930